Good morning. Call meeting to order.
Summer, please roll call.
>> Moral Kata
» Moral Kata
>> here.
» here.
>> Scott Garnan
» Scott Garnan
>> here.
» here.
>> Uh Deb Henkins, I do not see her yet.
» Uh Deb Henkins, I do not see her yet.
Russell Wilson
>> here.
» here.
>> Thomas Ryan
» Thomas Ryan
>> here. Okay, you have a quorum. All
» here. Okay, you have a quorum. All
right, since we got roll call done, item
two, minutes, consider approval of
minutes of environmental envir
enforcement board special meeting of
June 22nd,
2026 and reconvene meeting of June 23
and 24, 2026.
» Motion to approve
>> 29.
» 29.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> No second.
» No second.
>> Who motion? A motion to approve.
» Who motion? A motion to approve.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Any discussions?
» Any discussions?
>> Okay. Um I got a question on uh I think
» Okay. Um I got a question on uh I think
if you go to 29
» um minutes of 29. Can you open please?
» 21.
>> The minutes from the 29th.
» The minutes from the 29th.
>> 29th.
Uh it might be a typo. I just wanted to
clarify it.
>> What page?
» What page?
>> Uh the end
» Uh the end
number 12
uh it says consider motion to enter
recess until June 23, 2026.
Is that a typo?
>> Um no because that was from the original
» Um no because that was from the original
agenda. So we were through the special
meeting and the two reconvene meetings.
We were following along the original
agenda. So that was an item from as it's
as it was stated in the original agenda.
So
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> I don't know. Mandy, do you think
» I don't know. Mandy, do you think
there's a different way that should have
been
I think it's appropriate. We went past
the original two days that we had
originally scheduled it, which is why we
had the reconvene meeting on the 29th.
Um and the the number 12 is just
adjourning the the end of the meeting
instead of reconvening into another day.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> All right. It's all good. Okay. Cast
» All right. It's all good. Okay. Cast
your ballot.
Yeah. Passes 40.
Item three, executive session. Consider
convening into executive session upon
recommendation of the board's attorney
pursuant to 25 Oklahoma statute 307B4
and city of Enid code 8-3H-1C
to conduct confidential communication
between the board and its attorney
concerning a pending action where the
board
with the advice of its attorney
determines that disclosure would
seriously impair its ability to process
the processing proceedings in the public
interest. specifically for the purpose
of receiving legal advice and
deliberating at the conclusion of the
trial. Dooo
hearing held in appeal of notice of
violation order number no 001 and
related administrative order issued to
midcontent packaging inc and reconvene
into special session to announce its
decision in the form of written
findings.
Do I have a motion?
>> I will make a motion for to go into
» I will make a motion for to go into
executive session.
>> Second.
» Second.
>> All right. Catch your ballot.
» Passes 5-0.
>> We're going to be downstairs in the
» We're going to be downstairs in the
lower level conference room for
executive session today. Guys,
>> do I have a motion to reconvene into the
» do I have a motion to reconvene into the
regular session?
>> I'll motion to reconvene.
» I'll motion to reconvene.
>> I'll second it. All right. Cast your
» I'll second it. All right. Cast your
ballot.
All right. So,
do we need to continue?
>> We need a motion to continue.
» We need a motion to continue.
>> Motion to continue.
» Motion to continue.
>> It will need to have date, time, place.
» It will need to have date, time, place.
>> Okay. So,
» Okay. So,
>> so I will motion to reconvene
» so I will motion to reconvene
uh tomorrow, August 10th, at 10th.
>> August 11th. I apologize. tomorrow,
» August 11th. I apologize. tomorrow,
August 11th, at 10:00 a.m. here,
the council chambers.
>> Yep. Okay,
» Yep. Okay,
>> I'll second.
» I'll second.
>> All right, cast your ballot. Have any
» All right, cast your ballot. Have any
discussion? All right.
All right. Passes
50. So, we'll reconvening tomorrow at
10:00.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> 2:00.
» 2:00.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
All right. Um item five, public
comments.
>> Uh public comments is held till the end
» Uh public comments is held till the end
of the
>> Oh, okay.
» Oh, okay.
>> We haven't finished the executive
» We haven't finished the executive
session.
>> Executive session. We'll we'll pick up
» Executive session. We'll we'll pick up
public comment tomorrow after we've
finished the executive session.
>> Perfect. Okay,
» Perfect. Okay,
then
I guess.
>> Y.
» Y.
>> All right. Motion. Do I have a motion to
» All right. Motion. Do I have a motion to
adjourn?
>> Um are we adjourning?
» Um are we adjourning?
>> We're we're continuing the motion.
» We're we're continuing the motion.
>> We have already we've already had our
» We have already we've already had our
motion to continue the meeting. We're
We're good to go.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Cool.
» Cool.
>> Yep.
» Yep.
>> Quit dragging it out.
» All right. Um, do I have a motion to
reconvene?
>> Uh, we'll make a motion to reconvene.
» Uh, we'll make a motion to reconvene.
>> All right.
» All right.
>> I'll second.
» I'll second.
>> Catch your ballot.
» All right. It passes 40. Do we need roll
call? Okay. Just making sure.
>> No, I don't think so.
» No, I don't think so.
>> We don't. You're just going to No, we're
» We don't. You're just going to No, we're
just She's just going to note that um
Tom is not at the reconvene meeting.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> All right. Um do I have a motion to
» All right. Um do I have a motion to
reconvene into
>> um
» um
>> I will make a motion to reconvene into
» I will make a motion to reconvene into
executive session.
>> I second it.
» I second it.
>> All right. Cast your ballot.
» All right. Cast your ballot.
Passes 40. So,
» do I have a motion to reconvene?
>> Make a motion to reconvene.
» Make a motion to reconvene.
>> I second it.
» I second it.
>> Cash your ballot. Oh, sorry.
» That was mine.
>> That one.
» That one.
>> Cash your ballot. passes 40.
» All right.
>> He's going to read the order and then
» He's going to read the order and then
we'll look for a motion on the order.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Whenever we get the final order.
He gave you control.
>> Yep. Now he needs to open the document.
Can you get the order pulled up?
All right.
Okay.
Findings of fact conclusions of law and
order of the city of Enid environmental
informance board.
The above slated matter came on the
hearing before the city of India
environmental
environment board here in after called
board
for midcontinent packing here in after
called midcontent
appeal of the city of Enit here in call
herein after city of city notice of
violation no 001 issued July 22nd
2025 5. Its administrative order issued
November 21, 2025
and its amendment administrative order
issued March 16, 2026
pursuant to city of uh init ordinances
8-
3H-1
C. This appeal to board was conducted as
a trial dooo
Pursuant to ENIT code of ordinance
8-3H-1,
the board consists of the city's code
official, the city's director of
engineering services, two
representatives
from among
holding permits from the city as
significant industrial users, SIU
and a resident member resident member
The board is chaired by director of
engineering Muralik Kata. The city code
official is Scott Garnet. The two SIU
representatives are Debbie Henkins,
corporate environmental health and
safety manager at Parish Enterprises and
Russell Wilson, director of facility
services at Integras Health, the city
resident
member Thomas Ry.
The board is subjected to Oklahoma Open
Meetings Act.
The board convened for 3-day
evident evidentary hearing on June 22nd,
2026, June 23rd, 2026, and June 29,
2026. A public meeting notice was posted
for June 22nd and June 23rd meetings. A
separate a separate public meeting
notice was posted for the continuation
of the hearing on June 29th, 2026. A
quorum of board was presented throughout
all the portions of the hearing. The
city appeared by and through its council
of record Kaye Maddie Davis and Tom
Ferguson. the the respondent the
midcontinents appeared by and through
its council of Ricard Mark Walker and
Hank
Heron
prior to the evidentary hearing the
board considered Midcontinent's motion
to continue the city's response the
midcontinent's reply the motion to
continue was denied and the matter
proceeded to hearing Present
in its code of ordinance 8-3H-1C
provides that written findings will be
made at the conclusion of each hearing
and deliberations
will occur in executive session.
Thereafter the board convene in properly
noticed meeting on August 10, 2026 and
deliberated in executive session. The
August 20 August 10, 2026 meeting of
board was continued to August 11, 2026
to allow for additional deliberation in
executive session. During his executive
session at the August 10 and August 11th
meeting, the board examined and pleading
and considered all the evidence and
arguments presented by council during
the evidentary hearing. Upon leaving
executive session, the board convened
the open public meeting and cast words
regarding the adoption adoption of
findings of the fact, conclusion of law
and fi final order as reflection herein.
Findings of fact. The city owns and
operates a public-owned treatment works
POW,
also referred to the referred to as the
water reclamation facility, WRF, which
treats waste water from residents,
business, and industrial industries
before
discharging treated effluent to skeleton
creek. Wish water entering to PW
contains contaminants that must be
removed through discharge including
ammonia, phosphorus, suspended solids,
organic material
and other pollutants.
Influent samples were influent samples
are evidence of what entered into the
plant. Influent water is what the
biomass would be exposed to subject to
flow rate, basin volume and hydraulic
retention time. The init water
reclamation facility WRF includes both
physical treatment process and
biological treatment process. The
biological treatment process relies on
biomass that includes bacteria and high
life forms. But bacteria are primarily
primarily responsible for facilitating
the treatment process to remove
pollutants from waste water before
discharge.
The init WRF can be discharged as the
act can be described as activated sludge
treatment system because it uses active
biomass and living organisms to treat
waste water.
The primary treatment includes physical
process such as screening, grit removal
and
gravity settling
while secondary treatment includes
biological treatment process. The
activator sludge treatment relies on
biological conven
conversion of soluble organic material
into biomass by micro
microbial population and that
nitrification requires functioning
ammonia oxidizing and nitrate nitrite
oxidizing bacteria under aerobic
conditions.
Nitrification is a biologically
facilitated process in which ammonia is
converted into nitrate and then nitrate.
Ammonia oxidizing bacteria con convert
ammonia into nitrate and nitrite
oxidizing bacteria convert into nitrate.
Nitrifying bacteria are sensitive
organisms and grow more slowly than
hetrorotrophic bacteria. They are more s
sensitive than many other or
microorganisms present within the
activated sludge process. Once damaged
or inhibited, they require significant
time and effort to restore. Inhibitation
process. Inhibition process sorry
inhibition reduces treatment rate while
toxicity more directly relates to no
treatment. Loss of inhibitation of
nitrifying bacteria results in increased
effluent ammonia. Ammonia is present in
in its WRF influent and is a necessary
nutrient for
biological growth. Ammonia can be a
pollutant of concern if discharged into
the receiving stream.
Ammonia
discharged to a receiving stream can
contribute to a
algae problem. Algae blooms, oxidation,
oxygen depletion and fish kills in the
am in that ammonia itself can be a toxic
to fish and other aquatic species.
Organic material material rem is removal
is important because oxygen demanding
substance discharge to a receiving
stream can deplete dissolved oxygen and
cause fish kill. Phosphorus removal at
the init water reclamation facility also
depends on biological activity including
phosphate accumulating organisms.
Disruption to the activated sludge
process may adversely affect phosphorus
removal, flock formation, solid
settling, sludge quality and overall
efficiency effectiveness of the
treatment process.
Quadinary ammonium compounds here in
call quack are used as disinfectant
surface in industrial cleaning products.
Quark compounds
disrupt bacterial cell membrane which is
the disinfecting mechanism. Quarks have
similar impacts on treatment plants
including inhibitation and toxicity to
biomass. Quarks inhibit nitrification
and can be toxic to activated sludge.
Quarks can be
inhibitory to toxic to aquatic life.
inhibitory are toxic to aquatic life.
Dr. Stover here in after call
stove and Dr. Ed here in our after edged
that quacks may be capable of infer
interfering with the biological
treatment process at a wastewater
treatment plant under appropriate
conditions.
Both experts also agreed that quarks may
inhibit or adversely affect the
microorganisms responsible for
biological wastewater treatment plant.
Sto identified a published literature
reporting inhibitation of nitrification
at concentrations ranging from
approximately 0.1 to 1 mgs per liter to
3 to 5 mgs per liter and that no one has
determined any set number. Midc condens
exhibit 47 states that quacks kill
bacteria by disrupting cell membrane.
Recognizing operator concern over
wastewater treatment plant upsets and
shows toxicity depends depends on MLSS
sludge health and operating conditions.
It also inhibitation at concentration
well above 50 grams per liter when mixed
liquor surrendered solids MLSS is lower
around 10 to 20 parts per million of
nitrification.
The studies relied upon by Eddie did not
involve in its activated sludge
nitrification process but instead
address different different biological
process including ditrification and
aerobic treatment system and other
wastewater environments. The city is
regulated by ODQ and Oklahoma Department
of Environmental Quality, which in turn
operates the operates with delegated
authority to regulate under the federal
clean water act of 1972 to implement the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System called NPDES.
The NPDS permit program address water
pollution by regulating
point source that discharge pollutants
to
waters of United States.
It it was created in 1972 by clean water
act. Under the NPDS permit program
states governments are authorized by the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency EPA to perform many permitting
administrative and enforcement aspects
of the program. OBDS permit number
OK00021628
authorizes the city to discharge treated
waste water to Skeleton Creek subject to
specific number numerical affluent
limitations and monitoring requirements
including ammonia limits of 4.0 mgs per
liter monthly average and 6.0 zero mgs
per liter liter weekly average and
requirements that the permit complies
with all permit conditions conduct
routine sampling and submit electronic
discharging discharge monitoring
reports.
The city's permit further prohibits the
discharge of pollution pollutants in a
manner that interfere with the treatment
process or causes deliterate
deliturous effects to receiving waters
thereby defining the regulatory
standards against which the document
affluent concentration and discharge
continues to violation.
The city's OBDS permit gowns operate of
WRF and authorizes discharge into
Skeleton Creek and imposes mandatory
discharge and monitoring obligations on
the city. Failure to comply
with the OPDS permit may results in ODQ
investigation, notices of violation,
imposition of corrective requirements,
additional monitoring and penalties.
I forgot to start reading numbers.
That's okay. Number 31. As the holder of
the OPDS permit, the city is legally
responsible for the quality of treated
affluent discharged from the water
reclamation facility.
Regardless of whether pollutants cause
or contributing to a per permit
violation
originate from residential, commercial
or industrial user users of the
collection system. Number 32.
The city is responsible for compliance
with its OPDS permit and is required to
operate and maintain as industrial
pre-treatment program designed to
prevent pollution pollutants discharged
by industries industrial users from
interfering with treatment pro
operations passing through PW untreated
damaging treat damaging treatment
process are require or equipments
creating hazard service are causing
violations of the city's OPDS permit
number 33. Pursuant to ENIT code of
ordinance 8-3A-2,
SIUS may include an industrial user
discharging more than 25,000
gallons per day. A categorical
industrial user or a user with the
capability of discharging toxic
pollutants.
Number 34. The city regulates SIUS
through industrial wastewater permits.
This the sewer use ordinance
inspections, monitoring, sampling,
reporting requirements, and other
pre-treatment measures intended to
protect the POW. Number 35. SUS are
required to comply with their industrial
user discharge permits. Notify the city
of M. Notify the city of material
operation changes affecting the
wastewater discharge. Report a slug or
other significant discharge events.
Comply with applicable pre-treatment
requirements and cooperate with the
city's pre-treatment program. Number 36.
Mid-Continent is a SIU of the city sewer
system who operated under a city issued
industrial wastewater permit during the
relevant time period. Number 37.
Midcondent's business involves mixing
and packing chemicals,
packaging chemicals, cleaning products
including sanitizers,
soaps, toilet products and other
cleaning or surface active surface
active products that include quax and
other toxic compounds.
Number 38. Midc condens permit during
the relevant time period was in effect
from June 3, 2023rd, 2020 through June
2, 2025. Midcontinent permit requires
samples to be taken. A proper sampling
point requires a location that is safe,
accessible, representative of the users
discharge and isolated from mixing with
other users affluent. Number 41. The
city expressed concerns about
midcontinent sampling point and methods.
The sampling point was a floor drain
located inside the facility. The
sampling point method involves vacuuming
the floor drain. The location and method
did not provide a good representative
sample of midcontinents discharge.
Number 42. City of Enid environment
environmental special specialist
um Stephanie Sanders here in call herein
after Sanders issued a directive
requiring midcontinent to identify and
implement a safer and remove sorry safer
and more representative sampling
location. Number 43
Sanders the city midcarnate and envir
engineering and consulting here in after
envir work together to evaluate
discharge pathways and identify a
suitable sampling location.
Number 44. Documented die testing
established that waste water discharge
from Midcontent's internal flow drains
is hydraulic hy hydraulically connected
to the city's sewer sanitary sewer
system and specifically traveled travels
from the facility through laterals
lateral lines to manhole MH 1P020
where dye introduced into production
area floor drain was directly
observed at the manhole thereby
establishing the establishing the
existence of a continuous and traceable
discharge pathway from the facility.
Number 45. MH
1P020 is uh located on the east side of
54th Street receives the combined
industrial and domestic wastewater
discharge from midcontinent before the
wastewater
comingle comingles with
other source
in the border collection system. Number
46. MH1P020
was established as MidContinent's new
sampling location by agreeing by
agreement of all parties. Number 47.
Midcondent's permit authorized it to
discharge industrial waste water in
accordance with the stated terms and
conditions which provided a part.
C. The permit shall not discharge waste
water containing any of the following
substance from discharge point
part 1 C2. Any liquid solids or gases
which by reason of their nature are
quantity or may be sufficient either
alone or by interaction with other
substances to be in injurious to any
other way of the PW or to the operations
of the PW.
Part one C5. Any waste water containing
toxic pollutants in sufficient quantity
either single singly or by interaction
with other pollutants to endure or
interfere with any wastewater treatment
process. Continue a hazard to human or
animals. create a toxic effect in the
receiving wastewater of the PTW or to
exceed the limitations set forth in a
categorical pre-treatment standards. A
toxic pollutant shall include but not be
limited to any pollutant identified
pursuant to section 307
capital A small A of the
federal wastewater waste federal water
pollution control act clean water act
part one C8 any substance which will
cause the PW to violate its NPDS permit
and our state disposal of disposal
system permit are the receiving water
quality standards. Part one C1 any
pollutants including oxygen demanding
pollutants BOD5 etc. released at a flow
rate and our pollutant concentration
which a user known knows as
knows or has reason to know will cause
interference to the city of Enid
wastewater treatment facility. In no
case shall a slug load have a flow rate
or a concentrate or contain
concentration of quant qualities of
pollutants that exceed for any time
period longer than 15 minutes
more than 5 minutes. The average 24-hour
concentration quantities are flow during
normal operation.
Part one, C13. Any waste water which
causes a hazard to human life or creates
a public nuisance.
Number 48. Midcondence permit prohibits
the discharge of substance
substances that could cause interference
pass through hazardous condition or
exceeded applicable standards. The
permit further requires monthly
monitoring and reporting of pollutant
concentration from a designated
discharge point, mandates the use of
approved sampling and analytical methods
and obligates the permit to report
violations, accidental discharges
and changes in operation.
Number 49 with contents permit did not
contains a numeric Q quack
affluent limitation. However, it did not
contain prohibitions against discharging
substances that may
injure the PW toxic pollutants that may
interfere with the treatment or create a
toxic effects in receiving
waters. Substances causing the PW to
violate its permit.
Pollutants that interfere with the
treatment facility and waste water that
creates a hazard or public's nuisance.
Number 50. Any non-compliance
with any city issued permit conditions
consists a violation of the city of init
use ordinance 51.
On or around May 19th 20th 2025 Sto
reported that operations at the init
water reclamation facility began
experiencing abnormal plant condition
including elevated affluent ammonia
foaming and a sanitation cleaning or
chemical type of order. The data
indicated an initial inhibitation of
following followed by a failure of nutri
nitrification.
Number 52. On or around May 19th, 2025,
Sveners learned of the plant upset while
conducting routine sampling across the
sewer system for semianual regulatory
process. Number 53.
Servantis sampling
sampling locations included
midcontinents designated sampling point
sampling location MH1P020
number 54. Servantis smelled a strong
cleanerike odor and observed a thick
layer of foam at MH1P020
when the manual cover was removed.
Number 55. The conditions at MH1P020
were abnormal compared to typical
manhole observations. Number 56. Servant
observed similar conditions at 54 street
lift station which is where midcontent
affluent flows into flows to number 57.
Servant did not observe similar
conditions throughout the remainder of
the collection system. Specifically,
Servantis observed a observed and
compared multiple manholes across the
system and testified that abnormal foam
and order were not uniformly present
throughout the system. Number 58.
Influence sampling collected at the
water reclamation facility during and
immediately following the
May 2025 upset identified multiple
quacks
including numerous benzol
benzylcomine
conium compounds. dito,
dimethyl
ammonium compounds, diocto dimethyl
ammonium compounds and other cationic
surfent surfactants.
It did not report any detectable octal
dyo dimethyl ammonium chloride.
Number 59. On May 2025, Cervantes
collected a grab sample
on midcontinent's representative
sampling point. The sample identified
numerous quax spec species at
exceptionally high qu concentrations
including multiple
benzolo ben benzalocomium
compound dlo
dlo dimethyl ammonium ddc ddac d octo
dimethylam ammonium
and octal dychlo
dimethyl ammonium chloride and related
quadinary ammonium compounds number 60.
Several of these compounds were
represent at concentration thousands are
for for certain compounds hundreds of
thousands times high greater than the
laboratory reporting limits. Octal DECo
dimethyl ammonium chloride alone was
reported at approximately
146,318
mgs per liter. While DLO
dlothyl
ammonium was reported at approximately
1,810 mgs per liter, demonstrating an
extremely concentrated quack waste
stream rather than trace environmental
contaminations.
The influence sample sampling confirmed
that quack containing waste water had
reached the city's biological treatment
process during the period of the period
of the upset. Number 62, Ed
testified that a substantial portion of
the quack concentrations identified in
the May 20 midcarnance grab sample
consisted of octal d octal dchlorlo
dimethyl
ammonium chloride which was not detected
in the
effluency May 20th influent
composite sample.
Number 63. The plant influent samples
analyzed by effluency were were
composite samples representing
waste water entering the water
reclamation facility over time after
transport transport through the city's
collection system. Whereas the May 20
samples were May sample collected from
the midconent representative sampling
location was a grab sample reflecting
the waste water present at a single
point in the time in time before
co-mingling with other waste water.
Number 64. Although the May 20
midcontent grab sample and May 20
influent composite sample from effluency
have different relative concentration of
individuals quack species. They do not
demonstrate different sources. Rather
those difference are consistent with the
dilution mixing different differing
sample sampling methods methodologies
travel time throughout the collection
system. Absorption of cationic
surfectants to solids and biomass
degradation and changes in relative
concentrations among compounds.
store agreed that sorry number 65 store
agreed that grab samples and composite
sample results should not be compared in
an appleto apple fashion without
caution. He defined a grab sample as a
sample
dipped from a basin stream or manhole
that represents that what is uh passing
through at the moment of the collection.
Dr. Stover defined a composite sample as
individual sample collected over time
and
compiled to represent what occurred over
24 hours.
Number 66 source um source calculations
demonstrated that WRF received
approximately
700 lb of quax
on May 20. approximately 300 lb of
pounds on May 21st and approximately 700
lb on May 22nd. These calculations
reflected the total quantity of quark
concentration of the con quacks entering
the PW during those periods and not
merely their concentrations in
individual sample. Number 67.
Quax loading of the magnitude
could not be reasonable
be attributed to ordinary residential,
commercial or incidental consume
consumer use within the collection
system. The quantities of quacks
entering the WRF during the upset were
consistent with discharge from a
significant industrial
source handling quack containing
products. Number 68. Quack compounds are
capable of causing the observed
treatment
upset and are consistent with the
observed form chemical order and
biological impacts of at the plant.
Number 69.
On or around May 21, 2025, a fish kill
was reported. As a result of the
reported fish kill, ODQ and the city
conducted an investigation. The fish
kill was concurrent with the PW upset.
The investigation
concluded that the fishkill was
associated with the discharge of high
ammonia levels from PDW to Skeleton
Creek. As a result of the investigation,
ODQ issued a notice of violation to the
city of city after the event.
Number 71. The notice of violation state
stated that the city's wastewater
treatment facility discharged partially
treated waste water into the Skeleton
Creek in violation of its OPDS permit
resulting in a fish kill and widespread
environmental impacts and further
established that the treatment plant
upset was associated with the
introduction of ammonia surfectants and
disinfection
disinfectant type chemical that rendered
biological treatment process inactive
with the documented effluent parameters
exceedence
including elevated ammonia, CBOD and
total suspended solids thereby providing
independent regulatory evidence that
pollutant discharge into the treatment
system cause exceedence of permit limits
and environmental harm consistent with
interference with interference
attributable.
to upstream industrial contributions.
Number 72, Oklahoma Department of
Wildlife Conservation issued a fine or
penalty related to the fish kill upset
of the May 2025 event. Number 73. The
record supports that the fish kill
occurred in a temp temporal proximity to
the wastewater treatment water
reclamation facility. biological upset
and elevated
affluent ammonia.
Number 74. Following the May 19, 2025
upset and the notification of a fish
kill, Servantis and the city
investigated significant industrial
users with known discharge who operated
under the city issued industrial
wastewater permit during the relevant
time period. Number 75. Servant's
investigation included sampling at
multiple location, field observations to
determine presence of any foam and
strong chemical orders at manhole 1 P020
and other manhole locations. Sample
collect samples collected were analyzed
by the city's in-house lab. 76.
Servantis conducted a subsequent
sampling events at manhole 1 020
and the 54th Street lift station. The
samples continue to include elevated
quack concentrations.
Number 77. After the May 19, 2025 event
event at the water in its WRF servant
conducted contacted midcontinence
operations manager Peter Harrison here
in order herein after Harrison to let
him know the PW
was experiencing an upset. Midcarnate
responded to Cervantes on at least two
occasions to inform her additional
cleaning took place on the 19th in
preparation of an audit.
Number 78. On May 23rd, 2025, Cervantes
notified Midcontent Midcontinent that
the PW had experienced a biological
upset beginning on May 19, 2025.
identified midcontinent as a potential
contributor based on its location and
discharge characteristics. Number 79.
The city's investigation focused on
midcarnate after sampling results were
sampling results and field observations
indicated abnormal foam order and quack
related compounds associated with
midcontinent discharge. Number 80. As
part of the part of her investigation,
Servant has required Midcon to provide a
written response detailing all cleaning
chemicals used asso used associated
safety data sheets here in here in after
SDS and disposable
disposal practices
especially specifically including
whether
wash water or cleaning solutions were
discharged into the floor drain. and
connected to this sanitary sewer.
Number 81. Midcondents produced 1,200
SDS containing 9,000
9,000 pages of data.
Number 82. The SDS shows that chemicals
used by midcontinent or toxic pollutants
should not be disposed of in public
sewers and are specifically inhibitory
to aquatic life. Number 83. In July,
midcarnate advised that beginning May
2022 2025, it voluntarily began
containerizing
cleaning waste water generated around
the quax production area
for offsite disposal. Prior to this
date, all quack containing waste water
was discharged into the sanitary sewer.
Number 84. At the time of May 2025
event, ENIT WRF flow rate was
approximately 7 million gallons per day
with the May 19 to 20 flow rate
described as approximately 7.3 million
gallons per million gall mill million
gallons per day.
Number 85. Operational monitoring data
for the ENID WRF for May 10, 2025 to
June 9th, 2025 showed a marked increase
in affluent ammonia concentrations
beginning approximately May 20, 2025
with values raising from near zero to
levels exceeding 30 to 50 mgs per liter
and concurrent increases in effluent
suspended solids.
and total phosphorus providing a
contemporious sampling data
demonstrating a significant
deterioration in the treatment per
performance and elevated pollutant
concentrations in discharged effluent
during the upset period.
There is a gap of missing data during
the days when when the ODQ directed that
the POW be shut down because of the
upset.
Number 86. Before May 19, affluent
ammonia values at the WRF were at or
near non detective non-detect levels of
approximately 0.124 mgs per liter which
represented complete nitrification.
Number 87. The ammonia patterns
reflected sir inhibitation followed by
complete failure of nitrification.
The observed ammonia
increase was consistent with loss of
nitrification and would not be expected
if nitrification were functioning
properly. Number 88. The operational
monitoring data led STOR to conclude
that the plant began receiving some some
form of toxic toxicant on May 19, 2025.
Number 89. Store was asked about the
effect various other substances could
have on the WRF. He testified that the
arsenic alone would not foam or smell
like a cleaner and sinate would not
smell like a cleaner. Stow point it
would not would not have been reasonable
to test every everywhere else in the
cities for arsenic and heavy metal
arsenic heavy metals and cyanide in
response to the observed foaming and
midcontinent manhole evidence.
Number 90. The loss of nitrifying
bacteria requires the city and its
contract operator to actively restore
the biological treatment process before
the WRF could return to normal
operations. Because nitrifying bacteria
are slow growing by organisms, recovery
requires substantial time, monitoring
and operational adjustments, including
investigations of the upset sampling
laboratory review, biomass monitoring
and process control changes.
Number 91. As part of the emergency
response, city and the store group
implemented the extraordinary operation
measures to restore the biological
treatment process and reduce the effects
of quax on the WRF. Those measures
included purchasing and applying
neutraquart,
a product intended to mitigate or
neutralize the effects of quax within
the treatment process in an effort to
preserve or restore biological activity.
The sto group also ordered specialized
nitrifying bacteria and receded the WRF
in an effort to restore the biological
treatment process. A special pump was
required for these of efforts.
Number 92. Considering the pre-event
complete nitrification, the abrupt post
May 19th ammonia spike
observed foam and cleaning cleaner type
order. Quack detections associated with
the midcontinent
confirms loss of nitrifiers and stores
testimony regarding quax toxicity and
inhibitation. The record supply supports
the findings that the
findings that an inhibitory or toxic
industrial discharge caused the May 2025
nitrification failure.
Number 93. Considering the source
isolated sampling locations, die test
confirms of confirmation
confirmation of mid-continent discharge
pathway field observations at the
midcarnate manhole quack detections and
the city's investig city investigation.
The regard supports the finding that
midcontinent discharge was the source or
a contribution to contributing source of
the toxic or inhibitory discharge that
caused the WRF upset.
number 94. on July 20 22nd 2025
following the city's investigation of
the May 19 20th
through 20 25 WRF plant upset and the
fish kill the city issued a
mid-continent notice of violation no 001
alleging that midcarnate violated permit
number 021
by discharging and violation of the
permit including
causing an upset of the city's
wastewater treatment plant in May 2025.
Number 95. The NOV was based on sampling
detecting elevated concentrations of
quartonary ammonium compounds in a in
the facility's discharge
which were determined to have a to have
caused a significant wastewater
treatment plant upset on May 19, 2025.
The identified violations including
discharge of toxic pollutants in
quantities sufficient to interference
with POW operations, failure to prevent
pass through or interfer interference,
the lack of adequate pre-treatment and
chemical manage management control. It
specifically document documents
documents that that the facility failed
to provide a written summary of
discharge practices. Failed to confirm
or evaluate pre-treatment effectiveness
and failed to identify all chemical
products and processes contributing to
the discharge. thereby evidencing both
existence of a discharge containing
regulatory pollutants and non-compliance
with reporting and operational
requirements. Number 96. On November 21,
2025, the city issued an administrative
order to midcontent for notice of
violation NOV001
number 97. The administrative order to
midconent requires a corrective action,
additional pre-treatment or controls,
monitoring and sampling, planning and
reporting and cost recovery. Mr. Gilbert
herein after Gilbert testified that the
administrative order was intended to
identify responsibility, protect the
facility, and prevent reoccurrence, not
to punish
midcontinent.
Number 98. On March 16, 2026, the city
issued an amended administrative order
to MidConet for notice of violation
NOE001
number 99. Gilbert testified that
Midconent did not accept responsibility
for causing the upset, did not
acknowledge that it its discharge
contributed to the loss of
nitrification, and maintained that it
was not responsible. The city incurred
the cost of responding to the event and
paid penalties
or fines associated with the regulatory
responses including ODQ and wildlife
related consequences.
Number 100,
the cost recovery summary which itemized
expenses incurred as a result of the
wastewater incident includes one
regulatory enforcement cost including
the administrative fee associate
assessed by DEEQ. Number two, natural
resource damages
including the fisheries damage claim
associated within with the up downstream
fish kill. Number four, extensive
laboratory testing cost including
repeated analytical testing performed by
specifically specialtity laboratories
SPL over many months following the
upset. Number four, whole effluent
toxicity vet testing performed because
of the first wet vet test failed due to
2025 upset. Number five, pump equipment
requires pump equipment required for the
effort to restore the biological
treatment process and reduce the effects
of quax on the WRF. Number six, Neutra
Quart purchased and applied as part of
the city's effort to mitigate or
neutralize quax impacts within the
treatment process.
Number seven, biological receding
material including specialized
nitrifying bacteria purchased to restore
the activated sludge process after the
loss of nitrification. Number eight,
field sampling labor including repeated
grab sampling at the midcontent manhole
over an extended period. Number nine,
shipping cost including overnight
shipping shipment of analytical samples
for laboratory testing. Number 10,
certified mailing cost associated with
the enforcement actions and regulatory
notices. Number 11, publication cost
associated with the notice of city's
enforcement proceedings and additional
enforcement cost including those
incurred by the city's environmental
specialist to be substant subsequently
assessed
number 101.
These costs demonstrate the operational
and environmental consequences
associated with the discharge of
pollutants into PW number 102. The
consequences of May 2025 discharge were
not limited to the immediate
immediate expenses necessary to recover
to recover the plant. The violations of
the midcontinence permit also created
enforcement and monitoring expenses.
Part of regul regulating an industrial
user when a permit violation occurs is
to work with the user to asssure the
cause of the violations is incurred and
to monitor the user to asssure that
future violations do not occur. In this
case, this included ongoing laboratory
testing and testing of possible
alternative sources such as Tyson and
Integras as suggested by Midcon.
Number 103. City could not reasonably
restore normal operations or ensure
continued compliance with the with its
OPDES NPDES permit without identifying
the source of the inhibitory recharge.
Evaluate evaluating its component
compositions determining determining
whether additional discharge were
occurred and implementing measures to
prevent reoccurrence.
Number 104. Midcarnate timely appealed
the notice of violation nov001 issued
July 22nd
2025.
the administrative order issued November
21, 2025 and an amended administrative
order issued March 16, 2026.
Number 105,
an evidentary hearing before the board
was held on June 22nd, 2026 and June
23rd, 2026 and June 29th, 2026.
106.
The following exhibits offered by the
city were admitted into evidence.
Government exhibit 1 through 25, 27- 37
and 39 to 52. Midcontinent object
objected to admission of government
exhibit 1719 and 50. Its objections were
overruled.
Number 107. The following defendant
exhibits offered by midcarnant were
admitted into evidence. Defendant
exhibit 12, 15, 22, 40, 41, 43, and 47.
The city did not object to admission of
the midcontinent exhibit. Midcontinent
offered
a demonstrative exhibit 3 and four. The
city objected to the demonstrative being
admitted as exhibits. Midcontinent
withdraw the offer and ed demonstrate
exhibit 3 and
demonstrative exhibit 4 was admitted
number 108. The board has not relied
upon any single piece of evidence in
reaching its decision. Instead, the
board has weighed all of the direct and
circumstantial evidence presented,
including the physical evidence,
sampling data, biological evidence,
operational data, expert testimony,
documentary evidence, and witness
credibility.
When viewed collectively rather than in
isolation, the evidence continuously
demonstrate
that midcarnate discharge of quax
containing waste water caused the
materially contributed to May 2025
upset. The resulting interference with
the PW and the violations found herein
number 109. Mitnet is the only SIU in in
ENIT that uses quax containing compounds
to manufacture products. Its usage of
quax is significantly larger than other
facilities that use quax for only
cleaning and disinfecting prop purposes.
It is undisputable that MH1P020
accepts the discharge of only affluent
coming from midcarnate.
The POWW upset was accompanied by
significant foaming and cleaner like
smells. The 54th Street lift station
which directs effluent to the PW at the
same time was experienced significant
foaming and cleaner-like smells. MH1P020
which is directly north of the 54th
Street lift station was at the same time
experiencing significant foaming and
cleaner like smell.
All these conditions were abnormal. It
defines common sense to deny a con
connection between these three
observations
and the sole manufacturer of cleaning
products that discharge into the init
wastewater system and in effect
discharges directly into one of the
sites. MH1P020
number 110.
The testing of the May 20 grab sample
along with subsequent samples in June,
July, and August 2025 indicates the
presence of quacks in MH1P020
in quantities that are not explainable
by ordinary cleaning activities that one
might see in any other significant
business or industry. That is it is
apparent that the reading were readings
were the results of quacks being
discharged in a greater quantity not
simply from wiping down counters or
cleaning floors not covered with quax
waste.
Number 11. Midconent called no witness
to dispute the evidence repres presented
by the city with respect to the quax
feed feed stock and material stored in
the large quantities within its facility
nor the city's evidence with respect to
the conditions of the facility and the
significant risk of the escape of quax
laddin substances
that unrivate evidence demonstrate the
significant risk to the wastewater
system from accidental or intentional
discharges of the quack effluent. Number
112. The presence of quacks in MH1P020
demonstrates violations of the
midcontinent permit. In addition to
prohibiting actual interference with the
PW and pass through, the permit
prohibits discharge of substances that
may interfere either alone or in
conjunction with other discharges.
Number 113. The city investigated other
potential sources rather than assuming
midcontent was responsible. Its
investigation include included field
observations, wastewater pathways
analysis, pathway analysis, sampling
from multiple locations, review of plant
operational data, SDS review, documents
review, meetings with midcarnate and
evaluations of other industrial users.
The investigation of investigation was
interactive and datadriven. As
additional observations, sampling
results, plan data, operator reports and
facility information became available,
city personnel adjusted the
investigation and coordinated
additionally additional sampling, review
and source evaluation.
Number 114. The board finds that the
city responsible
city reasonably relied on multiple lines
of evidence rather than a single data
point including foam and order
observations, analytical testing, plant
performance data, bacterial testing,
facility information, sewer
configuration evidence, and source
pathway knowledge. Number 115. The
absence of an eyewitness
to the specific cleaning or discharging
EV event does not defect source
attributions.
The city's source determination is sus
supported by circumstantial evidence
including midcontinence operations,
discharge pathways, timing, physical
observations, sampling results,
biological evidence, and evaluation of
alternative sources.
number 116. The record supports a
finding that the abnormal discharge
indic indicators, WRF upset indicators
and downstream environmental
consequences occurred within a closely
connected time frame and that the city
reasonably expected its investigation
after a report of a fish kill because
the issue implic
implicated downstream environmental
impacts as well as plant operations.
Number 117. The board does not find the
absence of octo octo deco dimethyl
ammonium chloride from certain influent
reports sufficient to outweigh the
remaining evidence. The numer numerous
other quack compounds associated with
midcontinent were identified in both
midcontinent's wastewater and the plant
influent.
The board concluded concludes that the
absence of a single analytical analyte
analyte does not negate the city's
source attribution analysis number 118.
The board does not find that any other
SIU possess the same con combination of
quacks, handling operations, wastewater
pathway, physical observation, sampling
results, and temporal relationship to
the May 2025 upset as a midcontent. The
city's investigation reasonably
eliminated other significant industrial
users as the likely source of the
discharge number 119. The board does not
find persuade you EDA's opinion that
inhibitation could not occur below
approximately 50 mgs per liter such that
midcarnate is not reasonable for
writation
administrative order permit modification
seess
order emergency suspension and permit
denial. were based upon information
developed during the city's
investigation and recommendation of the
city staff responsible for
administration of the pre-treatment
program number 121. The board finds that
neither the city sewer use ordinance nor
accepted wastewater engineering
principle require the city to establish
an exact chemical
fingerprint. Identifying every
individual quack species at every
sampling location are pro
a single universal inhibitory
concentration
before concluding that a prohibition
prohibited discharge occurred. Thus
source attribution and interference are
established by the totality of the
evidence.
Number 11 122.
The board finds that quacks are
antimicrobial compounds intended to kill
or inhibit microorganisms because the
ENT WRF depends on living micron
microorganisms to perform by biological
treatment including nitrification quax
containing waste water is capable of
creating toxic effects within the POW
when discharged into sufficient
sufficient quantity.
Number one, two, three. The board finds
that midcontent discharge waste water
containing quax and cationic surfectants
to the city's sanitary sewer system.
Those compounds included benzo
benzylcomium family compounds, DD A
family compounds, OD MAC,
D O M A and related quadinary ammonium
compounds detected in samples collected
from midcontinents representative
discharge location.
Number 124.
The board finds that the quack
concentrations
identified during the May 2025 event
were not background
municipal levels, ordinary household use
or trace contamination.
The concentrations detected at
midcarnate discharge point and the mass
of quacks entering the WRF were
consistent with a significant industrial
discharge number 125. The board finds
that the mere existence of quax from
residential, commercial or industrial
sources of sources does not preclude a
finding that midcontinent caused a
contributed to the May 2025 upset. The
evidence established that midcontinence
operations, the concentrations
and the mass of quacks discharged, the
timing of event of the event, the
physical observations, the sewer
configurations and the biological
effects distinguished mid-continents
discharge from ordinary background
sources.
Number 126. The board finds that the
quack containing waste water caused or
contributed to toxic effects within the
WRF biological treatment process
including inhibitation or loss of
nitrifying bacteria, loss of ammonia
level removal,
disruption to disruption of biomass and
impaired treatment performance.
Number 27 127. The board finds that
midcontinence discharge caused the
contributions to interference with the
operations and performance of the PW.
Before the May 9 2025 event, the WRF was
achieving complete or near complete
nitrification. After the event, the
event affluent ammonia increased
sharply. Nitrification failure failed,
suspended solids increased, phosphorus
removal was impaired, and biological
treatment performance deteriorated.
Number 128. The board finds that the
interference was not limited to a
laboratory result. It was reflected in
plant operations, foam, and order
observations.
loss of nitrifying bacteria, elevated
ammonia, impaired phosphorus removal,
operational response measures, and the
need for recovery efforts. Number 129.
The board finds that the discharge
interfered with the city's ability to
operate the WRF in the ordinary course
and required extraordinary operational
measures including additional testing,
cationic surfectants monitoring,
neutraquad, biological reeding, pumping
equipment, response planning and
diversion protocols.
Number 130. The board finds that
midcontinent's discharge caused or
contributed to conditions that impaired
the city's ability to comply comply with
its OPDS NPDS obligations. The city's
permit required compliance with ammonia
limits and protection of the receiving
stream. At the May 2025 upset cause
elevated affluent ammonia and downstream
environmental consequences.
Number 131. The board finds that the
city as the OPDS NPDS permit holder was
exposed to regulatory consequences
because of the upset including OP ODQ
enforcement and wildlife related
assessment arising from downstream
impacts. Number 132. The board finds
that the discharge created conditions
that impaired the city's ability to
prevent pass through because
pollutants entered the PW in quantities
and under circum under circumstances
that impaired the treatment plant under
the treatment and affected the city's
ability to protect Skeleton Creek.
Number 133.
The board finds that the May 2025 event
was acute and not a gradual decline in
the plan performance.
The WRF was operating with effective
ammonia removal before the event
followed by a sudden ammonia spike, foam
order, and biological treatment failure.
Number 134. The board finds that the
timing of midcontinent's May 19th
cleaning audit activities returned to
full production foam and clean cleaner
order at the midcontinent manhole and
the immediate downstream observations
support a finding that the discharge was
episodic or slug like in nature.
135. The board finds that the discharge
was of a nature, volume or concentration
sufficient to disrupt the POW and
requires immediate operational response.
Number 136. The board finds that B
midconent failed to adequately prevent a
quack containing waste water, wash
water, spills, tank resins, resin, rinse
sets or related chemical
residues from entering the sanitary
sewer system.
Number 137. The board finds that
midcontent did not demonstrate adequate
pre-treatment, segregation, contaminant
monitoring or off-site disposal control
sufficient to protect the POTW from
quarks containing wastewater. Number
138. The board finds that MidCon did not
timely or completely provide the
information necessary for the city to
evaluate its discharge practices. Quack
containing waste streams, SDS, chemical
investig inventories, pre-treatment
practices,
containerization, off-site disposal and
corrective measures.
Number 139. The board finds that the
city could not reliably protect the PW
without complete information regarding
midcarnance quack containing products,
waste pathways, treatment practices and
discharge controls.
Number 140. The board finds that the
administrative order was necessary
because the NOV alone did not resolve
the compliance concerns. Continued quack
detections, unresolved wastewater
pathways,
incomplete information and inadequate
demonstrated pre- treatment in justifies
the corrective measures, continued
monitoring and enforcable compliance
obligations.
Number 141. The board finds that the
city's require requested costs were
reasonable reasonably and necessarily to
incur to investigate the discharge,
identify its source, restore biological
treatment, respond to ODQ and wildlife
related consequences, protect the PDW
and prevent recurrence.
Number 142. The board finds that the
requested penalties and cost recovery
were are reasonable in light of nature
of the violations, the harm to the PW
PW, the downstream environmental
impacts, the city's regulatory exposure,
midcarnance incomplete information, and
the resources required to investigate,
respond to, and prevent reoccurrence.
Number 143. Having considered
midcontinent's defi defenses together
with all of the evidence presented the
board concludes that the those
deficiency deficient defenses do not
overcome the greater way of the evidence
establishing that the midcontent
discharged quack containing wastewater
that caused the caused or materially
contributed to the May 2025 WRF upset
and the resulting violations of the
sewer use ordinance and permit number
021
number 144. The board finds that the NOV
and administrative orders were issued
not merely to impose penalties but to
identify and eliminate the cause of May
25 May 2025 upset. Obtaining information
necessary for the cities to evaluate
midcontinents wastewater practices
require corrective measures to protect
POW. ensuring future compliance with
permit number 021 and sewer use
ordinance and reduce the likelihood
likelihood of similar interference with
the city's biological treatment process.
The administrative order was reasonable
ex exercise the city's pre-treatment
authority following completion of its
investigation
number 145. Accordingly, the board finds
that the city's pro proved
the factual basis for the NOV and
administrative order by greater way of
its evidence of the evidence.
Do you want me to?
>> Yeah. Is that okay if I take over?
» Yeah. Is that okay if I take over?
Conclusion of laws, jurisdiction and
standard of review. The Environmental
Enforcement Board has jurisdiction over
the appe this appeal pursuant to the
Enids sewer use ordinance. The board
conducted a denovo evidentary hearing
and serves as a finder of the fact
including determining witness
credibility, weighing conflicting
evidence and applying the applicable
provisions of the sewer use ordinance
permit number 021 and governing state
and a federal pre-treatment law. Federal
Regulatory Authority. The MPDEes program
begins with a federal regulation 40 CFR
part 403 covers pre-treatment
regulations for existing and new sources
of pollution. It establishes
responsibility of federal, state and
local government, industry,
industry and public to the implement
national pre-treatment standards to
control pollutants which pass through or
interfere fear with treatment processes
in publicly owned treatment works POWs
or which may contaminate sewage sludge.
40 CFR 403.1A.
At 403.5, it establishes national
pre-treatment standards and defines
prohibitive discharges, general prohib
prohibitions. A user may not introduce
into a POTW any pollutants which cause
pass through or interference. These
general prohibitions and the specific
prohibitions in paragraph B of this
section apply to each user in
introducing pollutants to into a POTW
whether or not the user is subject to
the national pre-treatment standards or
any national state or local
pre-treatment requirements.
40 CFR 403.5A-1
specific prohibitions including any
pollutant released at a rate or
concentration that will cause
interference with the POTW 40 CFR
403.5B4.
Two standards are used to regulate
discharges. The categoral standard and
the prohibitive discharges standard.
Patronis versus Marshall Durban Food
Corp. 205 WAW WL 8158435
at star11 ND
LA March 17th of 2005. While some
categoral standards are set, not all
pollutants are subject to a categoral
standard. Instead, prohibited discharges
are determined by toxic effect and
potential. Ryan Howser, NRCO versus
Washington State Department of
Ecological and Pollution Control. He
hearings board 33 Washington
app 2D 1040 2024 AM Pepper Industry.
Wow.
Um, Inc. versus US EPA 996F
2D 346 349 DC circulate 1993.
The Clean Water Act and its regulations
recognize neither a good faith nor a
deminimous defense intended a and intent
and good faith are irrelevant in actions
involving strict liability for
contaminated MPDes permit violations.
Patronis versus Marshall, Durban, Food
Corp. I assume all the rest of this
needs to be in the record. Is that
accurate?
>> It's a reference to the case citation.
» It's a reference to the case citation.
You've already referenced that case
citation. Just go ahead and say ID.
>> ID.
» ID.
>> Okay. State Regulatory Authority. The
» Okay. State Regulatory Authority. The
Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality issues permits for municipal
wastewater plants and requires
municipalities to regulate industrial
users. Among other prohibitions on
discharges, Oklahoma regulation
regulations prevent the discharge of
seven wastewater causing alone or in
conjunction with other sources. The
treatment plants affluent who fail a
toxicity test for purpose of this
paragraph. toxicity means that the
endpoint of the acute biom monitoring
test requirement as specified in the
CCTS NPDES permit. Oklahoma admin code
252
63 623-3-1
Oklahoma regul regulations also
expressly prohibited eight detergent
surfac surface agent
active agents or other substances which
may cause excessive foaming in the POW
Oklahoma admin code 252 623-3-1
further ODQ defines that interference
includes a discharge with alone or with
other discharges, inhibits or disrupts
the POTW treatment process or
operations, and contributes to a
violation of requirements of the POTW
NPDES permit, Oklahoma admin code
25623-1-4.
Pass through includes a discharge that
exits the POTW into waters of the United
States in quantities or concentrations
that cause a violation of the POTW's
NPDES permit. Oklahoma admin code
25623-1-4.
Pre-treatment includes reduction,
elimination, or alteration of pollutants
before discharge to a POTW, including
controls to protect against surges or
slug loads that inter might interfere
with or be incompatible with the POW.
Oklahoma admin code 25623-1-427A
2-6-2025.
slug includes any non-rine episodic
discharge including an accidental spill
or non-customary batch discharge
Oklahoma admin code 25 2623-1-4
city regulation authority regulatory
authority the ENID code of ordinances
contains several provisions prohibiting
discharges in violation of an SIU's
permit 8-3F-3
requires a permit stating A permit
required. It shall be unlawful for any
significant industrial user to discharge
any waste water in to any natural outlet
within the city and or to the POTW
without a wastewater discharge permit
except as also authorized by the
environmental compliance specialist in
accordance with the provisions of this
article. 8-3F-4
allows for conditions and ordinance
compliance stating C permit conditions
wastewater discharge permits shall be
expressly subject to all provisions of
this article and all other applicable
ordinances other charges and fees
established by the city specific
prohibitions are also contained in the
code of ordinances 8-3A-8A
discharge of certain waters or waste to
sanitary sewer A general prohibitions.
No user shall contribute or cause to be
contributed directly or indirectly into
a POTW
any pollutant or waste water which will
interfere interfere with the operation
or performance of or pass through the
POTW. Furthermore, Furthermore, no user
may contribute the following substance
to the POTW.
8-3A-8A
1. Any liquids, solids, or gases which
by reason of their nature or quantity
are or may be sufficient either alone or
in interaction with other substances to
be injurous in any way to the POTW or to
the operation of the POTW.
8-3A-8A4.
Any waste water containing toxic
pollutants in the sufficient quantity,
either singly or by interaction with
other pollutants to injure or interfere
with any wastewater treatment process,
constitutes a hazard to humans or
animals, create a toxic effect in the
receiving waters of the PW, or to exceed
the limitations set forth in a categoral
pre-treatment standard. A toxic
pollutant shall include, but not be
limited to, any pollutant identified
pursuant to 307A of the act C 33 USC
1317A
8-3A-87,
any substance which will cause the POW
to violate its NPDES permit or the state
water quality standards. 8-3A-8A10
any pollutants excluding oxygen
demanding pollutants BOD5 and the like
release in a discharge rate and or
pollutant concentrate which will cause
interference to the POTW
8-3A-8
A12
Any waste water which causes a hazard to
human life or creates a public nuisance
8-3A A-2 contains definitions of
relevant terms.
Interference, a discharge which alone or
in conjunction with a discharge or
discharges from other sources. one
inhibits or disrupts the POTW treatment
processes or operations in its sludge
process use or disposal and two
therefore contributes to a violation of
any requirement of the city's NPDES
permit including an increase in the
magnitude or duration of a violation or
of the prevention of sewer sludge use or
disposal by the POTW in accordance with
any of the following statutory
regulatory provisions or permits issued
there or more stringent state or local
regulations. 405 of the Clean Water Act
33USC1345
or CR any criteria, guidelines or
regulations developed pursuant to the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, SWDA,
including title 2 commonly referred to
as the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, RC A C 42 USC6901
at
SQL
>> at SEC it means
» at SEC it means
the section that entire it's a reference
to the entire section.
>> Gotcha. Or more stringent state criteria
» Gotcha. Or more stringent state criteria
contained in any sludge management plan
prepared pursuant to subtitle D of the
SWDA C42USC
6941 XEC. The Clean Air Act C42 USC7401
XEC. The Toxic Substance Control Act C15
USC 2601X
the and the Marine Protection Research
and Sanctuaries Act C14USC
1431 XSE and 33USC401
XEC pass through a discharge which exits
the POWW into the waters of the US in
quantities or concentrations which alone
or in conjunction with a discharge or
discharges from other sources. It is a
cause of a violation of any requirement
of the POTW's NPDES permit, including an
increase in the magnitude or duration of
the violation. slug. Any discharge or
non-rine episodic nature, including but
not limited to an accidental spill or a
non-customary batch discharge, toxic
pollutant. any pollutant or combination
of pollutants listed as a toxic in
regulation promagated by the
administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency under the provisions
of CWA 307A
C 33USC
1317A
and or other acts upset an exceptional
incident in which there is an
unintentional and temporary
non-compliance with categoral
pre-treatment standards because of
factor factors beyond the reasonable
control of the industrial user. An
EPSSET does not include non-compliance
to the extent caused by opture
operational error, improperly designed
treatment facilities, inadequate
treatment facilities, lack of
preventative maintenance or careless or
improper operations.
Evidentiary standards. The city bears
the burden of proof to establish which
alleged violation by the preponderance
of the evidence. Under Oklahoma law,
this is also called the greater weight
of the evidence. Meaning that the burden
is to show something is more probably
true than not. C. Bedillo versus
Midcentury Insurance
Company 2005 Oklahoma 48121
P3D
1080 1096 as corrected June 22nd 2005
insured was insured was prov required to
prove the essential elements of his
claim for breach of the duty of the good
faith and fair dealing by a greater
weight of evidence standard i.e E by a
prepoundonderance of the evidence. As
the well-known axiom states, the
preponderance of evidence does not mean
the greater number of witnesses
testifying to the fact, but it that
which to the mind of the trier or of the
fact or the seeker of the truth seems
most conveniencing and more probably
true. The board may consider both direct
and circumstantial evidence. CE G O U JI
3.2 25. The law makes no distinction
between the weight to be given to either
direct or circumstantial evidence. You
should consider circumstantial evidence
together with all the other evidence in
the case in arriving at your verdict.
Midcon argues that the issue is all
about science and that is necessarily
for scientific evidence and the
scientist to prove provide answers to
whether it was responsible for the plant
upset or violated its permit. The issue
before the board is not whether the
causation can be demonstrated with
scientific certainty. Scientific
certainty seeks to eliminate doubt. A
preponderance of the evidence simply ask
which explanation is more probable one.
Courts have long rejected scientific
certainty as a standard in environmental
matters. C. Ethel Corp versus
Environmental Protection Agency 541F.2D
2D 1 128N
58 DC circuit 1976
petitioners demanding demand sole
resilience on scientific facts on
evidence that reputable scientific
techniques certify as certain typically
a scientist will not so certify evidence
unless the probability of error by
standard statistical measurement is less
than 5% that is scientific fact is at
least 95% certain. Also see Friends of
the Earth, Inc. versus Gaston Cooper
Recycling Corp. 204 F.3D
1491 163 Fourth Circuit 2000.
Litig litigants routinely rely on
circumstantial evidence to prove any
number of contested issues. And if a
prosecutor may rely wholly on
circumstantial evidence to prove that a
criminal defendant is guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt, there is no apparent
reason and certainly not a reason
apparent from the constitution, the
federal rules or the clean water act
itself to regard this type of proof as
per se deficient
for establishing standing in a clean
water act case. Environmental
enforcement states statutes do not
require scientific certainty certainty
before regulatory action may be taken.
Courts have consistently recognize that
environmental decisionmaking necessarily
involves evaluation of incomplete
conflicting and circumstantial evidence
and that the applicable legal question
is whether the evidence makes the
asserted conclusion more probable than
not. not whether every competing
hypothesis has been scientifically
eliminated. Ethel Corp versus EPA
541 F.2D128
DC circuit 1976.
The administrator may apply his
expertise to draw conclusions from
suspected but do not completely substain
relationships between facts from trends
among facts from theoretical projections
from imperfect data from prohibitive
preliminary data do not certifiably as
fact and the like. Lead indust lead
industries
» association
>> association EPA 467 F.2D 2D 1130 1148-49
DC circuit 1980 Sierra Club versus US
EPA 774F.3D
383 395-96
7th circuit
n 2014 midcontinent further argues that
the city was required to scientifically
fingerprint its wastewater by proving
the that every in individual QAC species
identified at mid-continent's
representative sampling location was
likewise identified at the WRF influent
before source attributation can be
established. The board rejects that
argument. Courts addressing
environmental contamination have
repeatedly recognized that pollutants
are diluted, mixed, transported,
absorbed, degraded, and otherwise
altered during migration through
environmental systems making exact chem
chemical fingerprinting scientific
scientical difficulty difficult or
impossible. Accordingly,
courts have held that environmental
liability may be established through the
total of the evidence, including simil
similar contaminants, migration
pathways, operational evidence, expert
testimony, and circumstantial evidence,
and does not require proof that every
containment may be chemically traced to
a specific source. See Arsco LLC versus
CX Inc. 21F
point sub
3D784
803-04
WD text
2014 holding that imposing a
fingerprinting requirement might permit
the owners and operators of facilities
to avoid financial responsibility
and that a plan plaintiff need not
fingerprint contamination to establish
liability. United States versus
Fairchild Industries, Inc. 766F.UP
405413
DMD
1991, holding that the government need
not trace each defendant's hazardous
waste to a specific release, but need
only prove that the hazardous substance
like those contained in the defendant's
waste were present at the site. New York
versus Adamski
in
16 FSUP 3D123
148-49
EDNY
2014 holding that a CER claiff
is not required to fingerprint
downgradant
contamination and that environmental
causation need not be established with
scientific certainty. citations omitted.
The board further concludes that neither
the procedural order, the sewer use
ordinance, Oklahoma pre-treatment law,
nor accepted principles of the
administrative law require the city to
eliminate every possible alternative
source of QAC's or disprove every
competing
hypothesis before enforcement could
occur. The board is not changed with
resolving resolving charged with
resolving every scientific disagreement
or identifying the precise molecular
fate of every QAC compound after
discharge into the collection system.
Rather, the board must determine whether
the greater weight of the evidence
establishes that mid-continent caused or
contributed to the alleged violations.
The board therefore evaluates the
evidence under the preponderance of the
evidence standard required by the
procedural order rather than the
heightened standard of scientific
certainty advocated by Midcontinent for
the reasons set forth in the findings of
the fact and infra. The board concludes
that the satisfy the city satisfies its
burden
interpretation of law of governing law.
The ordinance creates effectbased
prohibitions. The city operates its POTW
pursuant to any LPDDES,
NPDES permit, and remains responsible
for complying with that permit affluent
limitations, monitoring requirements,
reporting obligations, and other
regulatory requirements. The Clean Water
Act, Oklahoma Environment Environmental
Quality Code, Oklahoma pre-treatment
regulations, ENA SU sewer use ordinance,
and permit number 021 operate together
to prevent industrial users from
introducing pollutants that interfere
with treatment, pass through
inadequately treated, damaged sludge or
resident resid residules,
creating nuisance or safety conditions
or impair the city's OPDES NPDEES
compliance because the city is the OPDES
NPDES permit holder. ODEQ looks to the
city for permanent compliance even when
the pollutant causing or contributing to
non-compliance originates from an
industrial user. The sewer use ordinance
must therefore be interpreted as a
protective and preventative tree
treatment ordinance. Its prohibitions
apply when a discharge causes or
contributes to prohibited effects on the
POTW, receiving water, sludge,
residules, public safety, or the city's
permit compliance.
QAC's not need not be expressly listed.
The board's the board concludes that the
absence of numerical local limit or
specific reference to QAC's in permit
number 021 or the sewer use ordinance
does not authorize discharge of QAC's
containing waste water where the
discharge causes or contributes or may
cause to or contribute to interfere
toxic effects pass through nuisance
conditions sludge impacts or impairment
of the city's OPD dees NPDEES
obligations. Enid code 8-3A-8A4
is not limited to pollutants identified
under Clean Water Act 307A.
The ordinance provides that toxic
pollutants include but are not limited
those federally identified pollutants.
Accordingly, QAC containing waste water
may constitute a prohibited discharge if
it is present in a sufficient quantity
either singly or by interaction with
other pollutants to injure or interfere
with wastewater treatment, create toxic
effects, or otherwise cause one of the
prohibited effected effects identified
in the ordinance. proof of causation,
interference, or source attribution. The
law does not require the city to prove
each individual analytic
analytical result in isolation. Rather,
the board must determine whether the
cumulative force of the evidence makes
mid-continent's responsibility more
probable true than not. Source
attribution, interference, toxic
effects, and pass through may be
established by the total of the evidence
including operational data, sampling
results, biological testing, field
observation, sewer con configuration,
timing, expert testimony, and other
direct or circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial environmental proof
consists of multiple converging facts
that individually may not establish
causes causation but collectively do.
Here are those facts. The city's die
test confirming that manhole 1P020
represented mid-continent's discharge
before
comingling the location of the sewer
system and elimination of other s
significant industrial sources upstream
of the sampling point. The sudden
appearance of excessive foam and
cleaner-like odor at mid-continent's
manhole. the 54th Street lift station
and the WRF headworks. repeated an
analytical detection of numerous QAC
compounds in mid-continence discharge
over multiple sampling evidence events
contemporarious
detection of QAC's entering the WRF
affluent bacterial speciation plant
operational data and ammon ammonia
trends demonstrating a sudden loss of
nitrification QC mass load calculations
showing quantities inconsistence with an
ordinary residential or commercial
sources. SDS's product information and
chemical inventories identify the same
families of QAC used in mid-continents
manufacturing operations and warning
against discharge to sanitary sewers or
aquatic environment environmental
mid-continents emissions regarding
cleaning activities immediately
preceding the upset and a sub subsequent
sub subsequential
decision to containerize QAC's
containing waste water After May 22nd,
2005 2025, the city's physical
investigation, including inspection of
manholes, wastewater pathways,
production areas, floor drains,
contamination areas, hoses, and
discharge routes, mid-continents,
incomplete involving, and sometimes
inconsistent explanations regarding its
wastewater handling, chemical usage, and
pre-treatment practices, the elimination
or evaluation of other potential indiv
industrial sources and the testimony of
city witnesses explaining why the
observed operational biological and
analytical evidence was consistent with
a significant QAC discharge from
Midcontinent. The board evaluates these
facts collectively rather than requiring
any single piece of evidence to
independently prove every element.
Conclusions
interference
Enid code 8-3A-8A
prohibits any discharge that will
interfere with the operation or
performance of the POTW. Based upon the
finding of facts, the board concludes
that the mid-continent's discharge of
QAC's containing wastewater inhibited
and disrupted the city's activated
sludge treatment process, caused the
loss of nitrification, impaired ammonia
removal, disrupted biomass and treatment
performance, and therefore constituted
interference within the meaning of Enid
code 8-3A-8A
and Oklahoma pre-treat. treatment
regulations
toxic pollutants.
Enid code 8-3A-8A4
prohibits wastewater containing toxic
pollutants in sufficient quantity to
interfere or injure or interfere with
wastewater treatment processes or create
toxic effect within the POW or receiving
waters. Based upon findings of fact, the
board concludes that mid-continent
discharge QAC containing waste water in
the sufficient quantity to create toxic
effects within the city's biological
treatment process, including inh
inhibition and destruction of nitrifying
bacteria necessary for wastewater
treatment, sludge, and biological
treatment. Enid code 8-3A-8A6
prohibits substances that render sludge
or other POW residuals unsuitable or
otherwise impaired treatment. Based on
findings of fact, the board concludes
that mid-continence discharge disrupted
biomass, flock formation, solid
settling, sludge quality, and related
biological treatment functions thereby
there by violating 8-3A-8
A6
NPDES and W water quality enid code
8-3A-87
prohibits discharges that will cause the
POTW to violate its MPDES permit or
state water quality standards. Based
upon the findings of fact, the board
concludes that mid-continent's discharge
impaired the city's ability to comply
with its OPDES permit, caused elevated
affluent ammonium, contributed to
downstream environmental impacts,
resulted in ODEQ enforcement, and
therefore violated 8-3A-87
pollutant loading. Enid code 8-3A-8A10
prohibits pollutant concentrates or
discharge rates that cause interference.
Based upon finding a fact, the board
concludes that the nature,
concentration, and mass loading of QAC
containing wastewater discharged by
mid-continent constituted a prohibited
pollutant loading under 8-3A-810.
public nuisance. Enid code 8-3A-8A12
prohibits wastewater that creates a
public nuisance. Based upon the finding
effect, the board concludes that
mid-continence discharge producing
excessive excessive foaming, strong
cleaner-like odors within the
collectction system of the PW,
disruption of the wastewater treatment
operations, downstream environmental
impacts, and regulatory enforcement. All
of which constituted nuisance conditions
within the meeting of the ordinance.
Permit violation. Permit number 021
required May continent to comply with
the sewer use ordinance, maintain
adequate pre-treatment, prevent
prohibited discharges, report
operational changes, and provide
information necessary for the city to
evaluate compliance. The board finds
that mid-continent violated permit
number 021 by discharging QAC laden
effluent into the public waters
wastewater system. QAC containing
effluent is or may be toxic to its and
is prohibited from individual discharge
in quantities that cause foaming
interferes by itself or in combination
with other affluent to interfere with
the POW or pass through the POTW. The
mid-continent discharge violated each of
the above sighted provision and its
permit and caused the city to violate
its permit issued by the DODQ for
operation of the wastewater facility.
These failures constituted violation of
permit number 021
and independently justified enforcement
under the sewer use ordinance.
City investigation and enforcement.
Based upon finding a fact, the board
concludes that the city acted reasonably
in investigating the May 2025 treatment
upset through field observation,
repeated sampling, biological testing,
document request, facility inspections,
engineering evaluation, expert consult
consultation, and continued
communications with Midcontinent. The
city was not required to establish
liability through direct observation of
a discharge or through an exact chemical
fing fingerprint before taking
enforcement action. The evidence
available to the city provided a
reasonable factual basis to conclude
that mid-continent caused or contributed
to the WRF upset. The notice of
violation was authorized by the sewer
use ordinance and supported by the
evidence available to the city at the
time of its issu is issuance. The
administrative order likewise
constituted a reasonable and authorized
enforcement measure. Based upon the
findings of fact, the board concludes
that the continued QAC detections,
unresolved wastewater pathways,
incomplete information, and inadequate
demonstrated pre-treatment justified the
corrective measures imposed therein.
Midcontinent did not establish any
affirmative defense recognized under
Oklahoma pre-treatment regulations. The
evidence demonstrates that Midcontinent
knew or reasonably should have known
that its handling and discharge of the
QAC containing wastewater could
interfere with a biological wastewater
treatment facility. Cost recovery and
penalties.
The sewer use ordinance authorizes
recovery of costs reasonably incurred to
investigate prohibited discharges,
protect the POTW, restore treatment
operations, and enforce the city's
pre-treatment or program.
Based upon the finding effects, the
board concludes that the city's
requested cost including sampling,
laboratory analysis, wet testing, catac
cat cationic
surfactant testing, biological receding,
neutraqu and related treatment measures,
engineering consulting, consultation,
regul regulatory response, ODQ
compliance efforts, wildlife related
cost, employee time and associated
enforcement expenses. expenses were
reasonably and necessarily incurred as a
result of midcontinence violations. The
penalties and cost recovery sought by
the city are authorized by the sewer use
ordinance and are reasonable in light of
nature of the violation. The operational
disruption to the POW, the city's
regulatory exposure, the downstream
environmental consequences, and the
resources required to investigate,
remediate, and prevent reoccurrence.
MidCon's violation of permit number 021
cause response cost incurred by the city
in the amount of 14,79946.
The amounts are assessed to
mid-continent which is ordered to pay
the amounts within 10 days of the date
of this final order. Response costs
include enforcement costs are ongoing.
The city may sub subsequentially assess
its enforcement cost against
Midcontinent. Midcontinent is entitled
to appear any sub subsequent
assessment under the terms of the Enid
code of ordinances. Order.
It is therefore ordered in a judge that
one Midcontinent violated the general
prohibited discharge provisions of Enid
code 8-3A-8.
the requirements of the industrial user
permit number 021 and the city's
pre-treatment program by discharging QAC
containing wastewater that caused or
contributed to interference with the
POTW toxic effects within the biological
treatment process impairment of the
city's OPDES NPDES compliance
obligations and other prohibited
conditions identified in the sewer use
ordinance.
Two, notice of violations number 001 is
affirmed. Three, administrative order
and amended ad administrative order
number
01 are affirmed.
Four, midcontinent shall comply with the
corrective measures set forth in
administrative order and administrative
orders numbers
001
five. Mid-Continent shall comply with
all corrective measures imposed herein.
Six, the city is awarded recoverable
cost in the amount of 104,799
46. This is the amount shall be paid to
the city within 30 days of the appealing
party's receipt of the judgment of the
board. The city's environmental
compliance officer may proceed with any
additional enforcement cost she finds
necessary under the city's code. This
decision is final unless appealed
pursuant to 12 Oklahoma State 951 to the
Garfield County District Court within 30
days of the appealing party's receipt of
the judgment of the board. Wherefore,
these findings of fact and conclusions
of law are issued as the final judgment
of the Environmental Enforcement Board
as reflected by a vote held in public
session on August 11th, 2026.
>> Do I have a motion to
» Do I have a motion to
>> There's There needs to be one
» There's There needs to be one
correction. If you'll scroll back up
to
» Scroll back. Are you talking about on
>> um scroll up just a little further? The
» um scroll up just a little further? The
this
>> uh the amounts it should be 30 days of
» uh the amounts it should be 30 days of
the date of the final order there.
>> So your motion will need to include that
» So your motion will need to include that
amendment to the
>> order.
» order.
Okay. So 30 days.
>> So do I have a motion to amend that?
» So do I have a motion to amend that?
>> Do we we do that?
» Do we we do that?
>> It would just be a motion to amend. I
» It would just be a motion to amend. I
will make a motion to approve
>> order as
» order as
>> with with the amendment
» with with the amendment
>> of 30 days. Y
» of 30 days. Y
>> I'll second.
» I'll second.
>> Okay. Cast your ballot.
» It's not working.
>> It's not working. It's not working.
» It's not working. It's not working.
>> The amendment was on the time to pay the
» The amendment was on the time to pay the
>> Yeah, it said 10 days one place. It
» Yeah, it said 10 days one place. It
should be it should have read 30 days.
>> 30 days. Thank you.
» Just vote by show of hands.
>> Oh yeah, sure.
» Oh yeah, sure.
>> It might be working.
» Okay. Catch your ballots. Passes 40.
Number five. Public comment.
>> Is there anyone signed up?
» Is there anyone signed up?
>> None. I don't think anyone signed up.
» None. I don't think anyone signed up.
>> Okay. Do I have a motion to adjurnn?
» Okay. Do I have a motion to adjurnn?
I will make a motion to adjurnn.
>> I'll second it.
» I'll second it.
>> All right. Cast your ballot.
» All right. Cast your ballot.
It passes. Four zero. Motion journ.
See you guys time.